This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Does Germany abolish itself? https://grauwacht.substack.com/p/does-germany-abolish-itself
Schafft Deutschland sich ab? https://grauwacht.substack.com/p/schafft-deutschland-sich-ab
I analyze the latest PISA results to figure out why Germany's performance has declined so much in recent years. My focus is on figuring out the extend to which changes in migration patterns can explain the decline. I won't post the entire post here because it has a lot of figures and will be disjointed to read. Remember to subscribe!
Introduction
In 2010, the book "Deutschland schafft sich ab" (Germany Abolishes Itself) was created by Thilo Sarrazin. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. Sarrazin's core thesis on the topic of education can be roughly summarized as follows:
The German birth rate is low, with less than 1.4 children per woman. This is contrasted by a large number of migrants, especially from Muslim countries, who have higher birth rates.
Many migrants have educational deficits compared to the German population.
Even after several generations, these migrants do not catch up with German society. This is due to genetic and cultural inheritance as well as little pressure to integrate.
In the long run, Germany’s educational achievements will deteriorate due to this demographic change.
Sarrazin's critics argued that he was right about some things, but that he painted too bleak a picture and mixed truths with falsehoods. They pointed out, for example, that there had been progress in the area of education among Turks, a large Muslim immigrant group. Against the background of the recently published PISA study, in which Germany performed miserably, it seems appropriate to re-examine Sarrazin's thesis. In particular, I will use the latest PISA study to answer the question of whether, and to what extent, migration aspects play a role in the continuous decline of German education...
It did not abolish itself, it is occupied and the occupiers will ensure that Germany is kept in line with their ideology. The Germans knew full well what would happen if the Americans and Soviets would take over the world and there is a reason why they fought tooth and nail to stop it. The foresight of German thinkers in the 20s and 30s was astonishing and they understood the direction the anglosphere was taking.
Are you trying to defend Nazi Germany here?
They were fighting for a homogenous high trust society that was self-sufficient and built to last. They fought against communists and liberals who wanted a centralized global order with bland global materialism. They defended Europe from Stalin and their loss is turning western Europe into North Africa/middle east. Germany would not be in severe demographic decline with large scale third world immigration if they had won. They wouldn't have suffered the cultural decay that comes with Stalinism and bland American consumerism.
Cultural decay? Stalinism was well known for pushing classical art, music, literature, theatre and ballet to the masses, whether the masses appreciated it or not.
LOL. Whatever pure Aryan kulchur would victorious Reich produce, it would be as helpless in face of American art and music as Soviet culture was.
As long as you have the will to send to concentration camp anyone caught with unauthorized radio or bootleg negro music records, you can stop the tide with brute force. As long.
More options
Context Copy link
Counter-point, in order to establish a high trust society one must establish trust, a resource that Hitler and friends seemed to be particularly bent on squandering.
More options
Context Copy link
The whole western world. In 1950, Europe was twice the population of Africa. Today it's half. I have a friend in a fairly high position who told me how they're worried about what happens when the gigantic populations of sub-Saharan Africa start migrating to more temperate climates. Racism, climate change and replacement migration - the blankslatist-economic/progressive-moralist logic is clear. They've basically made up their minds about what's supposed to happen. They see it as their role to manage migration, ensure things don't get out of control - there's no concept of saying 'no' - that's too far-right, it would be too hard to oppose all the civil society NGOs, there'd be judicial review if you want to send them back...
You can see it in Biden's crowing about how the European descended white population of the US fell below 50% back in 2017 (US defines white more expansively), how this was the source of their strength. No more white European civilization and that's a good thing. Same in Eastern Europe. You've got the US embassy in Estonia pushing multiculturalism. Poland's fertility is well below replacement and they're in the EU - they're not going to be spared.
Allied victory in WW2 cemented the blankslatist-progressive ideology as the official doctrine of the Western world. Even China and Russia give it lip-service. It's ironic, there's an entire book of letters from British servicemen, (Unknown Warriors) most of whom bitterly regret how things turned out. They resent how the nation they fought for was replaced, how Britain's full of ungrateful foreigners and violent selfish yobs, how the politicians betray them with constant doubledealing and corruption. Reaping the spoils of victory!
you seem to miss that for decades, communists in those countires were pushing blankslatism, it is very recent that USA went further than them
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This sort of romantic neo-nazi image is ridiculous. The Nazis were not high trust. In fact they were the total opposite, a heap of the most venal, odious, dishonourable bandits to ever come out of Germany (which is saying something). They had no concerns for honour or trust or mercy, no respect for the traditional religion of Europe, no respect for the ancient peoples of Europe. They started vast wars over money and land, lied habitually, ran a horribly corrupt state built on exploitation and outright slavery, and slaughtered millions.
Nor was their state really ever intended to be self sufficient. From the start, the intention was to loot, conquer and subjugate their neighbours. Indeed, the German nationalist project was mostly complete by 1938 with the annexations of Austria and the Germanized regions of Czechoslovakia, and scarcely a peep from the Allies. But the Nazis dreamed of imperial domination and glory, not self sufficiency. Instead of rallying the nations of Europe against Bolshevism ( an easy task), Hitler squandered his credibility. By the end of WWII even anti communists like Churchill were drinking with Stalin, and it was left to the US to establish an anti communist front in Europe - well, the half of it that was left.
It's interesting because we have a much better example of reactionary "we don't do globalism here"autarky from the 1940s - Franco, who carefully avoided entanglement in either WWII or the postwar international order. That didn't work either, but he failed with more grace and less bloodshed than Hitler.
It's darkly funny that the first thing Franco did after (according to Franco) preventing a communist revolution in Iberia was implement a disastrous, ideologically motivated economic policy, causing a massive famine which killed hundreds of thousands of people and miring Spain in dire poverty for two decades. It's like that Spongebob meme where they're celebrating while the city burns in the background, "we did it, Hitler, we saved Spain from bolshevism!"
I don't know about famine. I knew the autarky years were very rough for Spain, especially coming after years of civil war.
More options
Context Copy link
Franco didn't have that much of a choice after 1945.
The policy discussed was implemented from the late 1930s, not 1945.
Well, yeah, thank you very much, you’re indeed correct that Franco’s austere policy of economic self-reliance and self-reinforcement was akshually implemented from the beginning. I’m no economist, but I’m pretty sure that a liberal economic policy of free trade, foreign investment, wide-ranging reforms and growing interconnectedness isn’t feasible when a) the entire continent is engulfed in all-out war b) you are an isolated and detested pariah in international politics because Hitler and Mussolini militarily assisted in your seizure of power. I didn’t state this in detailed terms because I assumed most visitors here understand this, and I didn’t want to post a verbose reply. Again, excuse the snark please.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The difference is that Franco learned from his mistake and Spain converged with western standards of living over the latter half of his reign.
So did the Red Chinese but I wouldn't give them props for that.
I would, actually, give deng credit for economic growth, although less than Franco because he never caught up with his neighbors. The gulf between the PRC and Japan/South Korea/Taiwan is much bigger than the pretty small Spain/italy gap.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Evidence for Benjamin's claim that fascism is the "aestheticization of politics"?
If there is inevitably going to be a pop culture it would be better if it were cultivated with a purpose by some kind of class with a proper education and righteous intention to direct the people in a particular, intentional way.
The reality that this 'eureka moment' of great truth inevitability leads us all to getting thrown in gulags instead of creating a utopia driving the culture in 'purposeful' directions is why we're all here talking about exactly this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While some of what you say may be correct, I feel the need to temper your enthusiasm.
German society had numerous problems in the 1920s. It was shaken up by the effects of industrialization, urbanization, unification and democracy, and even more badly so the first world war and the following economic crises. The country was very troubled and not at all self-sufficient. What the national socialists turned the country into in the 30s and 40s wasn't much better. Some problems were solved, yes, and maybe it even was the nazis' doing, but what they made of Germany wasn't a lasting high-trust society but a totalitarian shithole that steadily degraded its social capital - by replacing Germany's formerly durable culture with the artificial crackpot pseudo-culture invented by party ideologues, by pouring ever-more resources and manpower into military endeavors (one can make the case that this was justified, given the Bolschewist threat, but frankly I think a large degree of doubt is merited here), and finally by ruining what was left of the country's international standing and plunging it into the war that almost destroyed it at the time by the after-effects of which are slowly destroying it now.
For all that I know many at the time may have fought for the country proper, or against bolshevism, but on the whole the fight was corrupted in means and in goals and led to the worst possible outcome short of an actual Nazi victory, because let us recall for a moment that the people in power at the time weren't sagacious guardians of Germany's heritage and future but a bunch of unhinged gangsters high on their own supplies of ideology and drugs and intent on transforming Germany from a real country with a real society populated by real human beings into some nightmare caricature. They might have coasted for some time on the industry of the people and the military heritage of Prussia, but Nazi administrative competence was, frankly, not much to boast of. I have no doubts that whatever social and economic capital Germany had at the time, the political leadership would not have failed to destroy it in due time.
So, yes, I guess they wouldn't have suffered the cultural decay that comes with Stalinism or Capitalism...but instead we would've seen a third flavor of cultural self-destruction.
Before the sailors' mutinies and revolutions of November 1918, Friedrich Ebert, the leader of the Social Democrats, made the proposal, or so I've heard, for the emperor to abdicate in favor of his son, to negotiate a ceasefire, and to reach out to the US government to sue for a separate peace, as a first step of terminating the war and salvaging a defeated nation. This was probably the only conceivable path to preventing the ensuing national catastrophe, but the emperor decided against it. And from then on, the republic that came into existence only had enemies in the country, save for small-r republican Social Democrats, who were always a political minority. And this republic was never going to be a European bulwark against American and Soviet hegemonic tendencies. This story was always going to end in disaster, I think.
I think the Weimar republic would have survived if Gustav Stresemann had been able to turn the DVP into an effective centre-right party. Crucial to the fall of Weimar is that all the right-wing forces except the DVP (which never moved beyond a niche party for eccentric rich people) and the Bavarian regionalist BVP (which didn't organise outside Bavaria) wanted to destroy it.
Building an effective centre-right party after the Versailles dictate is implemented is sort of difficult.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I appreciate that you have to feel this way because you are German-German, but because I have the luxury of being German-a-few-generations-removed, allow me to suggest that none of the WWI vets who happened to get control of the government afterward were 'unhinged gangsters'
Was JFK an 'unhinged gangster' because his family were literal mobsters and he was constantly high on painkillers?
I "have" to feel that the great sin of Germany was what it did to the Jews, Cripples and Gypsies. I do feel that the greatest sin of Germany back then was what it did to Germany and the Germans.
As for those WWI vets, you can validly suggest that they weren't all unhinged gangsters, but I will insist that more than enough of them in positions of great power were, and this includes big names like Himmler, Göring, the non-veteran Göbbles and Hitler himself, and a thousand lesser party barons who managed to escape post-war condemnation only because they lorded it over the Germans instead of bullying foreigners or minorities. Some more unhinged, some more gangster, some perhaps neither but alas the the party was top-heavy with unhinged gangsters and the top had the last word on acceptable behavior.
I'm fine with denouncing the common depiction of the Nazis as fundamentally evil, fine with admitting that they did some good, fine with any claim of there being worse things in the world than Nazis, fine with theories that posit that Fascism may have good points, but not fine with attempts to whitewash those particular Nazis as saviors of the Germany they destroyed in their mania and incompetence.
Look at their mismanagement, the purges, the wealth accumulated by party functionaries, and the ground-level stories of German peasants and tradespeople being bossed around and told to shut up and get with the program or else, and look at the total and utter catastrophe that was WW2. It takes a lot of revisionism to clear them of the blame for that. You can, if you like, completely ignore the horror stories of concentration camps and death squads or any principled objection to authoritarianism - there's still more than enough left to condemn the Nazis in general both for what they attempted and for what they ended up achieving.
And I honestly don't know enough about JFK to answer your question.
Churchill was the one who declared war. It was his choice.
Edit: This wasn't meant to seem curt - sometime though brevity is the soul of wit. Yes, perhaps if the Junkers or some other more traditional conservative faction had risen to power rather than such a reactionary party, Germany may have done X, Y, and Z. But it seems crass to me, almost prideful, to look at the 'unhinged gangsters' who 'volunteered' to beat the Spanish communists and then got the band back together in the Rhineland, Osterreich, the Sudetenland, Danzig, etc to give the Bolsheviks a genuinely good go and say 'if only!'
Yes, they lost, but they fought! By Jesu they fought. And it's just as easy to say 'it would've been better if they hadn't' as 'it would've been worse.' Maybe the Bolsheviks would've won in Spain and then later pushed through all of Europe to the Atlantic.
It's not unlike when Barbarossa drowned on the way to the Third Crusade. Yes, it's a bit pathetic, and we can poke fun at him for drowning (because he is our ancestral hero). But he chose to go! He chose to fight! That he happened to drown when someone else might've not and (swamped the saracens) instead doesn't make him an 'unhinged gangster'
It would be pretty hard for Churchill to declare war in 1939. You might not know as much about WWII as you think.
More options
Context Copy link
Hitler declared war on Poland, in the face of explicit threats by Britain and France to join such a war on Poland's side. He could have just, y'know, not done that, and if he had he'd be remembered as the second Bismarck for the Anschluss and Munich.
More options
Context Copy link
That's certainly a take, and a depressingly common one around here it seems.
Setting aside the fact that Churchill didn't even become prime minister until May of 1940, I'm just going to reiterate what I said the last time this topic came up a month ago.
Hitler's diplomatic position in August of 1939 was essentially that of a belligerent drunk at the bar who keeps getting in people's faces and asking "Oh Yah? Watch'ou goanna do about bro?" and then acts surprised when someone decides to "do something about it".
The Nazis were already on thin-ice for continuing their territorial expansion post Munich, rebuking the Anglo German Naval Agreement, and harassing neutral shipping in the North Sea wich the British regarded as their back yard. If they didn't want a war with the British, they could have easily avoided it by not doing any of those things and more critically by not aligning themselves with the Bolsheviks against a country that both the British and French had a security agreement with.
Edit to add: That last bit in particular also demonstrates that all that talk from current year nazis about "racial brotherhood" and "opposing communism" is a crock of shit.
For all the talk condemning "brother wars" Prussians seem particularly prone to engaging in them and as much as I want to make a joke about Martin Luther being to blame I'm worried about someone falling into the same trap I almost did with @Southkraut's comment down thread where I almost chewed them a new one before I realized they were being facetious.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you even a German? You talk like an American with some far off German ancestors, who has no real connection to the country or it's culture. You also idealize Germany, and attack the Anglo world, like someone who knows the faults of the Anglo world first hand, but has no real understanding of what Germany was like then.
More options
Context Copy link
Germany could have not invaded Poland.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes they fought, but their having fought no matter how much and how well doesn't save the Germany of today. We can trace our unmaking right back to them. Barbarossa, for all of his ineffectual campaigns and fruitless labors, left the Germanies roughly in the state he found them in. The Nazis took a struggling Germany and, for all the little glories they won, burned it right down to the ground and left the withered remains to the mercy of the victors. Certainly perfidious Albion had its schemes and probably quite a laugh at our fate, perhaps on can believe that Hitler himself would have preferred peace with them, but in the end they played Realpolitik and they did a hell of a lot better a job of not bringing their own countries to bloody ruin.
Unless you subscribe to some school of thought that completely denies the significance of consequence, I find no way to absolve the people who had complete authority over the country from complete responsibility for its destruction. Whatever our enemies might have done, however justified any given aspect of German military campaigning was, given that kind of authority those kinds of results speak for themselves.
And so as to not neglect the Unhinged Gangsters bit - I stand by that. Something like the Night of the Long Knives is decidedly ungerman.
More options
Context Copy link
Churchill was not prime minister when England and France declared war on Germany.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd suggest that at least one was.
I like Hitler and think he was genuinely kind of a nice fella
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link